Why Evangelicals Should Rethink Embrace of Contraception, Part One

Another look at birth control and its motivations.

By Julie Roys Published on July 25, 2018

I used to think like most evangelicals when it came to family planning. I strongly opposed abortion, but embraced contraception and thought Catholic objections to birth control were on par with praying to Mary.

Abortion, I reasoned, takes an innocent life and is clearly wrong. But contraception merely prevents conception. What could be wrong with that?

Sadly, I had never considered arguments on the other side. When I did, I found they aren’t flimsy or far-fetched. They’re solid and Scriptural. And they aren’t just Catholic either.

Every Protestant Reformer opposed contraception. In fact, before 1930, every church — Protestant and Catholic — did as well.

Yet today, most evangelicals embrace contraception. In fact, we’re so enthusiastic about it, we’re promoting it worldwide.

The Christian aid group World Vision now works with the pro-abortion Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to help women in poor countries “time and space their pregnancies.” So does Christian singer Amy Grant. There’s even a faith-based organization whose main purpose is to promote family planning. Not surprisingly, Bill & Melinda Gates are contributing to this group too.

Today, Western nations spend billions to control population in the developing world. Supporters say the impetus for this is concern for women and children. But critics say that’s not so. The only reason the West wants to reduce population elsewhere is because it wants more resources for itself.

In any case, the issue of birth control isn’t just personal; it’s global. And the stakes don’t just concern the size of one’s family, but the fate of people worldwide and the witness of the Church.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

Over the last 60 years, many evangelicals have promoted a view that earlier Christians would have thought immoral. We didn’t do this because we studied Scripture and found prior interpretations lacking. Instead, we were swept along by culture.

Most evangelicals are simply unaware of this sad history. Our pastors said nothing, or told us birth control was fine and we gladly accepted what we were told. But the stakes are too high for us continue in ignorance. We need to study our past and Scripture, and seriously rethink if using birth control honors God.

In this piece, I’ll help us do that by explaining what led evangelicals to embrace birth control. In part two, I’ll describe the theology developed to defend this embrace. And in part three, I’ll examine biblical arguments for and against contraception.

Anglicans Break With Tradition

Though Martin Luther had no problem with natural family planning, he strongly opposed contraception, calling it “intrinsically evil” and “a grave sin.” John Calvin felt similarly. Referring to Onan’s sin, he wrote, “It is a horrible thing to pour out seed.” This “quenches the hope” of one’s family and “kills the son … before he is born.”

In saying these things, Luther and Calvin were not expressing anything new. They were simply stating a position the Church had held for more than a thousand years. Early Church Father St. Clement of Alexandria wrote, “(T)he seed is not to be … wasted. To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature.” Likewise, John Chrysostom lamented that some couples viewed children “as grievous and unwelcome” due to their greed.

Historically, opposing birth control has not been a Catholic thing. It’s been a Christian thing. As late as 1908, Anglican church leaders officially resolved that “the use of all artificial means” of birth control should be discouraged. They added that contraception corrupted character and was “hostile to national welfare.”

Yet in 1930, Anglicans reversed course and became the first church to condone birth control. As author and scholar Allan C. Carlson said in a 2015 interview, the impetus for this change was not spiritual, but pragmatic. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger had recruited Anglican pastors and convinced many to embrace eugenics, or “controlled breeding.” The American Eugenics Society even sponsored a “Eugenics Sermon Contest” with cash prizes for the best sermons.

Evangelicals Succumb to Fear

Evangelicals, however, opposed birth control for several more decades. But in 1959, Billy Graham made a stunning statement. He told reporters that he found “nothing in the Bible which would forbid birth control.”

Like the Anglicans, Graham didn’t appear to be motivated by Scripture. Instead, having recently visited Africa, he cited concerns of overpopulation. “I do believe that some form of birth control is necessary in Asia, Japan, Africa, and other nations where population explosions are threatened,” he said.

Many in Graham’s generation shared his concern. In 1952, the Population Council had warned that overpopulation was going to deplete the world’s resources. And in 1958, the Draper Committee reported that the “population problem” was the greatest obstacle to world progress.

A month before Graham’s statement, Christianity Today ran an article on the Draper Report. It suggested that the time had come for a “re-examination” of sex apart from procreation. Apparently, Graham agreed.

Over the next decade, fears of overpopulation continued to grow and exploded when Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb. This best-selling book predicted that overpopulation would lead to mass starvation in the 1970s and 80s. Though Ehrlich’s predictions never came true, the fears he raised remained and impacted Christians and non-Christians alike.

Yet evangelicals couldn’t fully embrace contraception without a some kind of biblical rationale. That came seven years after Graham’s statement. And it led to major changes in Christian thought and action.

Many evangelicals began accepting and using contraception. And as I explain in my next article, some even began to condone abortion as well.

 

Julie Roys is an author, speaker, journalist and host of the former national radio show, Up For Debate. She writes about gender, sexuality and marriage in her book, Redeeming the Feminine Soul: God’s Surprising Vision for Womanhood, as well as at her blog www.julieroys.com.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • stumpc

    Yup. We had 50 years of unequivocal evidence. This was a bad decision.

  • James Blazsik

    There is a struggle in the Catholic Church regarding contraception, but it can not change Catholic teaching, Pope Paul Vl Humanae Vitae stood against the culture of the 60’s in standing against contraception.
    With sola Scriptura one can make Scripture say what one wants to say. This is the downfall of ethics in Evangelicalism.

    • Bryan

      You were good up to your last two sentences. One can make Scripture say what one wants whether they believe Sola Scriptura or not. Even Pope’s have been guilty of this based on my understanding of Church history.

      • James Blazsik

        It’s true. That is why there are 1000’s of denominations. Catholic teaching comprises 2,000 years. Popes can’t change dogma.
        Read Martin Luther’s “The Jews and Their Lies”. Luther promoted the persecution of the Jews: the burning of synagogues taking of property to name just a few. No Pope ever did that.

        • Bryan

          “There are 1000’s of denominations” for several reasons, not just because of people deciding what the Bible says. For example, Presbyterians originally came about because of their system of church governance, the Presbytery. Methodist because they had a method for biblical study. More recently the Presbyterian denomination has split over the issue of the inerrancy of Scripture. PCUSA which I believe no longer believes in the inerrancy of Scripture split at least into the PCA and OPC.
          Since you brought up “The Jews and Their Lies”, I’ll say that this was not an opinion isolated to Luther and his Reformation counterparts. You may want to review Church history on treatment of Jews. It hasn’t always been great whether the church in question was Catholic or Protestant.
          I am not defending Luther or placing Protestants, Evangelicals, or Catholics above any of the others. My original comment meant exactly what it said: Sola Scriptura is not a requirement to make Scripture say what one wants it to say. Both Catholic and Protestant churches have been guilty of this since the church began. Evangelicals and Catholics have the same issue at heart: namely the human heart and it’s natural bent away from God.

          • James Blazsik

            1000’s of denominations have profound differences. The difference between Calvin and Wesley, Baptist and Pentecostal, Luther and non-denominal churches are profound and the result of private interpretation by sola Scriptura. In the end, there is no such thing as Scripture alone. One always follow a teaching tradition (Calvin, Wesley etc).
            The Bible says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. 1 Tim 3:15. The Church has the authority of teaching Scripture.
            No Pope ever said anything Luther said regarding the Jews. He is the founder of Protestant faith. This is directly connected to sola Scriptura.

          • Bryan

            “The difference between Calvin and Wesley, Baptist and Pentecostal, Luther and non-denominal churches are profound and the result of private interpretation by sola Scriptura.” The differences between denominations is not solely the result of Sola Scriptura. That was my point before and that was illustrated in my comment.
            It was not the only reason for Luther either. Personally, I agree with Eric Metaxas who posited that Luther would have remained Catholic and worked through the issues he brought to the churches attention, had they not excommunicated him. I believe he sought to reform the Church, not divide it. At least initially when he posted his 95 theses.
            Today, there are many more ways that the Catholic & Protestant churches are alike in their core beliefs than they are different. I think if Luther hadn’t been excommunicated that might have happened sooner.
            You seem to have a fixation that Evangelicals are heretics and that sola Scriptura is the sole cause. Yet even as you said tradition plays as much a part in Protestant history as in Catholic (“One always follow a teaching tradition (Calvin, Wesley etc).”)
            As for the Jews, no Pope has written “The Jews and Their Lies”. That’s true, but the historical church (or those acting in the name of the church) has been as harsh against the Jews as Luther was in his later life.

          • luther was a 300lb drukard, and while intoxicated one night he raped a mentally ill nun he wanted to run away with. The nun killed herself after she came to and realized what had happened.

            THAT is what got luther excommunicated.

            luther was then employed by the German government who wanted to consolidate the German people into an empire that would take the place of God. luther served as propaganda minister for this purpose, and knew what he was doing was evil. luther also knew that if he did spill the beans and leave his cushioned job, he would be killed to not ruin the German empire’s plan.

            As far as Catholic and protestant being alike, do not make me laugh. The comment section here alone proves just how far prots have abandoned God for some freemason suburbia.

          • Bryan

            I’d be interested to know the basis for your claim that Luther raped a nun and was excommunicated over that. It was my impression that he was excommunicated over his teachings and writings, including the 95 theses among others, and that it was the result of his appearance at the Diet of Worms. I’ve heard this from others before, but for purposes of this conversation, you can reference the Wikipedia article (I can’t believe I’m using Wikipedia as a source) on the Diet of Worms. Eric Metaxas also has a biography of Luther that’s pretty fair from what I’ve heard. Haven’t had the chance to read it myself unfortunately, just a few interviews with the author.
            As for the comment section of the Stream, two things: 1) Not everybody who comments here claims to be a Christian butof those that do, there’s a mix of Protestants and Catholics. 2) I think we can agree that on the core beliefs of the Church, we do indeed agree, namely that God is the Creator and sustainer of life; that he created man; that man rebelled and was separated from God; that God, in His mercy, chose to provide His son Jesus as an atoning sacrifice through Jesus’ perfect life in earth, his death and resurrection; and that for those who confess and believe that will be justified before God in order to spend eternity with Him after our earthly life is complete. If we agree on those, then the most important things are taken care of. The rest rare details. Not minor or unimportant, but not primary either.

          • We do not agree on those, they are statement of history do not even touch the important topic of how one gets home to Heaven.

            you not only reject the Word of God (by either perpetually editing out Catholic things or taking out whole books), you reject His Church and the Sacraments. The Sacraments are the Graces of God given to man, by rejecting them you reject the only Grace of God you will ever be allowed.

            While it is clear you are mostly a political figure who is Christian in name only, I would still recommend four books for you:

            “Facts about luther” by Monsignior Patrick O’Hare

            “Bearing False Witness” by Rodney Stark

            “Europe and the Faith” and “The Great Heresies” by Hillaire Belloc

            They aren’t written by conservative pundits, but they will inform you better than anything else.

          • Bryan

            Thank you for the reading material.

          • Ken Abbott

            You have your facts straight, Bryan, and don’t let anyone disabuse you of them. I’ve not read the Metaxas biography yet either, but I can certainly recommend the classic bio by Roland Bainton (“Here I Stand”), which holds up incredibly well after a half-century. I will also recommend materials written by the contemporary church historian Stephen Nichols–he has an easy and interesting style that makes his books a pleasure to read.

          • ARB

            False, James. It’s not as if the yellow star that the Nazis forced Jews to wear wasn’t preceded by the same badge requirement demanded by Pope Innocent III, after all. Papal decree might not have gone to the extent that grouchy old Luther suggested, but it was still abominable and the Roman Church helped establish antisemitism in the law and defacto way of the land; indeed, Luther also wrote (much earlier) That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew, which was an intense criticism of the Roman Church’s foul treatment and consequent failure to evangelize properly to the Jewish people. And, rightly speaking, the early Luther, standing for the Gospel as Rome demanded he deny its plain teaching, is the foundation of both the Reformation and the confessional Lutheran church (though the latter owes much if not more to Martin Chemnitz as well), not the grouchy old man Luther dying of extremely painful kidney stones. Even Luther himself, in a letter to Wolfgang Capito, said he would not have had his works collected into volumes and preserved, except for the Catechism and On the Bondage of the Will, but rather have them all devoured “in a Saturnian hunger”; and modern Protestantism of all stripes certainly agrees when it comes to On the Jews and Their Lies.

            I see you also misunderstand Sola Scriptura. This doctrine claims foremost that the Bible is the sole source of authority within the church. It does not follow that the church does not have any authority to teach it and to show its members the correct interpretation; it would be absurd for any denomination to claim that, considering this is the role and purpose of these denominations. It does prescribe what the church’s tools are in teaching the Scriptures: namely, the Scriptures themselves, especially via context and the principle that “Scripture interprets Scripture”, that is the practice of using clear teachings to interpret less clear teachings.

            This is why most of the heresies which have developed within the Protestant church can be traced to blatant disregard for Scripture and Scriptural correction: those Baptists who deny the salvific effects of baptism, contradicting Romans 6:3-4 and 1 Peter 3:21; the Sacramentarians who deny the presence of Christ in the sacrament despite Christ’s clarity in the words of institution and even moreso the clear statement in 1 Cor 11 that *there are consequences to neglecting to recognize Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament*; and then those like the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, worst of all, who deny the inspiration of the Scriptures and in so doing deny the Christian faith altogether. All these stem from people presuming an interpretation they would like to believe–that Christ can’t *really* be present in the Eucharist, or that sprinkling a little bit of water can’t *really* carry God’s promise of salvation, or that God can’t *really* disapprove of homosexual activity or abortion or female pastors, etc.–and picking and choosing verses (heresy in the literal sense) to make a newspaper-and-paste ransom note doctrine out of them, neglecting that any complete and honest reading of Scripture would deny them that interpretation.

            In contrast, the Roman church’s errors tend to stem from its attempts to resolve theological matters while disregarding Scripture entirely: to use Reason to build theories of salvation in the vein of the Scholastics and inventing an economy of sin to profit off of, or explaining away the mysteries of the Eucharist with Aristotelian philosophy; turning to visions allegedly seen by shepherd children, or highly suspect “miracles”, to edify points of theology; or simply innovating doctrine using the church as its own authority with no recourse to Scripture whatsoever; or through making absurd claims about the meaning of certain verses and then leaning on the church’s authority when these are questioned. And so often, these worldly means lead Rome into contradicting the Scriptures themselves!

            Both of these, indeed, are violations of Sola Scriptura and proper teaching within the Christian Church. The heretical Protestants mentioned above pay only lip service to the principle they claim; they enshrine first their own desires and preferences and reason as truth and then mutilate Scripture to adorn that golden calf. In contrast, the Roman church neglects to heed Scripture in their doctrinal chase after Reason and Signs and Power, and when they do utilize Scripture they too often presume to improve it with their own babblings, a conceit which ends as well as Doña Cecilia Giménez’s attempt at improving Ecce Homo.

          • James Blazsik

            It is unbelievable that you compare Innocent lll and Martin Luther. I am not saying it was right, and I don’t agree. But it was never uniformly implemented and never advocated violence.
            But to minimize Luther by calling him “grouchy” is disconcerting. Luther became a madman in his later life. He advocated violence. The burning down of synagogues and theft of their property.
            He also approved the slaughter of 100,000 peasants.
            I understand sola Scriptura. It results in teaching tradition. It just matters who teaches it.
            The Catholic Church relies on Scripture and Tradition like everyone else. It just recognizes it. It has 2,000 years of teaching.
            Calvinists rely on Scripture and Calvin, Methodists rely on Scripture and Wesley. Sola Scriptura is impossible. I know you say that Scripture is the only source – but who determines what is from Scripture?
            The Trinity, the deity of Christ and His atoning sacrifice, His resurrection and Scripture come from the Catholic Church.

          • You remind me of something Venerable Fulton Sheen said: that people’s hatred of the Church is their vain attempt to ignore. Also that people like yourself fall for lies of dishonest historians and heretics.

            It seems that you will tell yourself any lie you can to justify your heresy, even going so far as to blame the Church for what you alone are guilty of.

        • Boris

          Oh please the pope was in bed with Adolf Hitler who was a hero to the pope.

          • James Blazsik

            That’s as false of a statement that one can think of. The Catholic Church saved more Jews in WW2 than any other organization combined. Pope Pius Xll was praised by Golda Meir and other Jewish leaders. Albert Einstein praised the Catholic Church.
            Pope Pius Xll had a spy that against the nazis. He also supported an assassination plan against hitler.
            Fake news.

          • Boris

            How the Catholic Church Sheltered Nazi War Criminals
            The evidence is irrefutable—and growing
            KEVIN J. MADIGAN / DEC. 1, 2011

          • James Blazsik

            Fake news. Your assertion relies on erroneous sources. The Catholic Church helped 100,000’s of immigrants – if nazis used the system the Church did not know.. The Catholic Church was unaware. Even if a someone who is a Catholic helped a nazi – it wasn’t the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church did not shelter nazis.
            I just told you the Catholic Church saved more Jews than all organizations combined. Think of it. That’s good.
            You are a troll.

          • Boris

            The article I posted is well documented. “Mussolini is a wonderful man. Do you hear me? A wonderful man.” – Pope Pius XI. Fortunately we have the Christians on words expressing unbounded love for their fellow Nazis. Just like you do today with the NRA which is actually funded by the American Nazi Party, your political party.

          • James Blazsik

            I just told you the Catholic Church saved more Jews than all organizations combined. Thats a good thing.
            You bounce from one thing to another – you are a troll.
            Are you a Christian? If you are, what church do you attend? You do realize we are talking about contraception?

          • Boris

            You can tell me whatever you want. However since you’e a Christian everything you say is suspect since all of you are such liars. Some Christians helped the Jews but most of them were Nazis and shouted “Christ killer” at the Jews before they murdered them. I’m not a Christian. I know too much about science to be fooled by that nonsense. Okay contraception. If people would use it we would not have so many abortions. Agreed?

          • James Blazsik

            I appreciate your honesty. Christianity has the highest moral code in the world. We value truth.
            Christians who truly loved Christ would never yell “Christ Killer” and kill Jews.Just because someone is born into a Christian country doesn’t mean that they are Christians.
            Did you know that modern science came from Catholic Europe? Did you know the Catholic Church created the University System? Also, Catholic Europe eliminated slavery in Europe. Free markets were developed in Catholic Europe. THe Catholicism built Western Civilization.

          • Boris

            “I appreciate your honesty. Christianity has the highest moral code in the world. We value truth.”
            That is very easy to disprove. The Christians at the Discovery Institute are documented liars. Anybody can Google the Quote Mine Project and there examples of Christian dishonesty abound. Taking quotes out of context from legitimate scientists to make it seem like they question the validity of well-established science or support creationist lunacy is lying, plain and simple. I have many more examples of Christian dishonesty. The whole New Testament is a hoax perpetrated by the Church. Christianity is such a mountain of lies it needs another mountain of lies to defend the lies called Christian apologetics. Only lies need to be defended. Truth is self-evident.
            “Christians who truly loved Christ would never yell “Christ Killer” and kill Jews.Just because someone is born into a Christian country doesn’t mean that they are Christians.”
            This is a fallacy free zone. That is the No True Scotsman Fallacy. No dice.
            “Did you know that modern science came from Catholic Europe?”
            I am so sick of hearing and seeing that lie. That is absolutely NOT true. When Marco Polo visited China in 1271, he found a place far more technologically advanced than anywhere in Western Europe. The Chinese were 200 years ahead of the Christians in Europe. They had already invented the abacus, canals and locks, gunpowder and fireworks, kites, paper money, the spinning wheel, printing presses, roads and hotels, suspension bridges, porcelain, movable sails and rudders, the crossbow, the compass, stirrups, the umbrella, metal clocks, alcohol and on and on. Marco Polo and the Europeans had never seen or even dreamed of these things. Not only that the Chinese were centuries ahead of the Christians in astronomy, physics, chemistry, meteorology, seismology, technology, engineering and mathematics ALL of which trace their origins to China and NOT Europe. Also the Chinese invented the concept of zero which was banned in Europe by the Church because of its obvious connotations. You really should research the propaganda your Christian apologists crank out before you repeat and get humiliated by an atheist. Sorry you even mentioned that huh? Yeah. FYI the Chinese were the first to outlaw slavery.

          • James Blazsik

            Now, notice I said modern science. This comprises the scientific method. That did not come from China. That is not to say there wasn’t science out there. But the formulation of modern science and advances in science were in Catholic Europe that left the world behind.
            Also, remember the development of the University System by the Catholic Church. This gave the atmosphere for modern science to flourish.
            Also, the Catholic Church is the patron of astronomy. The first scientists were Christians. It was a Catholic priest that promoted in Big Bang and toured with Einstein.
            You are so filled with bigotry and hatred towards Christians that nothing will persuade you. You will believe any lie against Christianity.
            It doesn’t matter if China was first in abolishing slavery.(Which I don’t believe). World History is filled with slavery. The point is that Catholic Europe eliminated it because of the Catholic Church.
            Whether you like it or not,.nazism was heavily influenced by darwin. Nietzsche was an atheist which also heavily influenced the nazis. In the end, the nazis were atheists or believed in nordic religions or were satanists – they were not Christians. No matter want you want to believe.
            Atheistic communism killed 10’s of millions of people in the 20th century. Atheism brought misery to the world. As an atheist you want to believe that Christians were nazis. You want to pass the buck because of the horror that atheism has brought to the world.
            .

          • Boris

            “Now, notice I said modern science. This comprises the scientific method.”
            Scientific method says that no finding is the final word and all findings are subject to future revision and even outright rebuttal. The Church demands the final word so it did not invent scientific method. The Church denied evolution until 1946 even though Christian colleges had already been teaching it for over 60 years
            “That did not come from China. That is not to say there wasn’t science out there. But the formulation of modern science and advances in science were in Catholic Europe that left the world behind.”
            Oh please the Church denied the findings of Copernicus and Galileo and you want to give the Church credit for their findings anyway. You are really the lowest of the low, the most despicable kind of liar and religious charlatan. I absolutely hate people like you with a passion.
            “Whether you like it or not,.nazism was heavily influenced by darwin. ”
            I really hate you liars. I really do. Darwin’s discovery of natural selection is science. It isn’t a political ideology or a religion. Charles Darwin was an abolitionist and Hitler was a racist. Hitler was a devout Catholic and a creationist who banned the teaching of evolution in the German public schools and universities. In 1960 there were only two countries teaching creationism left in the world: Germany and South Africa, perfect examples of fine of Christian societies.
            “No matter want you want to believe. Atheistic communism killed 10’s of millions of people in the 20th century. ….lies lies lies”
            Christian propagandists have gone to great lengths to conflate atheism with communism. I disagree with their claim that communism is any kind of atheistic philosophy. Communism simply replaced the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God of Christianity with the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent State government. The State is supposedly all good, all wise and all powerful. So communism is just as nuts as Christianity with its unrealistic utopian fantasies and pie-in-the sky promises. Stalinist Russia and Maoist China were certainly guilty of many terrible human rights violations. However no atheist either one of us knows would defend this kind of political repression. Not even the current leaders, we’ll assume they are atheists too, of these nations will defend the barbaric actions of their predecessors. These human rights violations stemmed from the communist leader’s power mad political ambitions, not from some philosophical conviction that their citizens needed to be indoctrinated with an atheistic worldview or an academic conviction that religion needed to be done away with because it contradicts the laws of physics. If atheism is to be held responsible for political repression in Russia and China then Christianity is definitely responsible for the atrocities of the Crusades, Inquisitions, witch hunts, heresy hunting and the Holocaust.
            Like you, Joseph Stalin thought Evolution by Natural Selection was some bourgeoisie Western philosophy. So the communists adopted a pseudoscience similar to Intelligent Design Magic and Stalin fired or jailed about 3000 evolutionary biologists. Stalin didn’t need them anymore because with Lysenkoism Stalin was convinced that rye could transform into wheat and wheat into barley, that weeds could spontaneously transmute into food grains, and that “natural cooperation” was observed in nature as opposed to “natural selection.” This is a part of history the ID Magic promoters don’t want you to know about because over 20 million people starved to death because of the communists rejection of science, of evolution, and acceptance of pseudoscience the same kind of pseudoscience promoted creationists like Stephen Meyer and you. Again I hate liars and I really hate you.

          • Boris

            Scientific method says that no finding is the final word and all findings are subject to future revision and even outright rebuttal. The Church demands the final word so it did not invent scientific method. The Church denied evolution until 1946 even though Christian colleges had already been teaching it for over 60 years
            “That did not come from China. That is not to say there wasn’t science out there. But the formulation of modern science and advances in science were in Catholic Europe that left the world behind.”
            Oh please the Church denied the findings of Copernicus and Galileo and you want to give the Church credit for their findings anyway. You are really the lowest of the low, the most despicable kind of liar and religious charlatan. I absolutely hate people like you with a passion.
            “Whether you like it or not,.nazism was heavily influenced by darwin. ”
            I really hate you liars. I really do. Darwin’s discovery of natural selection is science. It isn’t a political ideology or a religion. Charles Darwin was an abolitionist and Hitler was a racist. Hitler was a devout Catholic and a creationist who banned the teaching of evolution in the German public schools and universities. In 1960 there were only two countries teaching creationism left in the world: Germany and South Africa, perfect examples of fine of Christian societies.
            “No matter want you want to believe. Atheistic communism killed 10’s of millions of people in the 20th century. ….lies lies lies”
            Christian propagandists have gone to great lengths to conflate atheism with communism. I disagree with their claim that communism is any kind of atheistic philosophy. Communism simply replaced the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God of Christianity with the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent State government. The State is supposedly all good, all wise and all powerful. So communism is just as nuts as Christianity with its unrealistic utopian fantasies and pie-in-the sky promises. Stalinist Russia and Maoist China were certainly guilty of many terrible human rights violations. However no atheist either one of us knows would defend this kind of political repression. Not even the current leaders, we’ll assume they are atheists too, of these nations will defend the barbaric actions of their predecessors. These human rights violations stemmed from the communist leader’s power mad political ambitions, not from some philosophical conviction that their citizens needed to be indoctrinated with an atheistic worldview or an academic conviction that religion needed to be done away with because it contradicts the laws of physics. If atheism is to be held responsible for political repression in Russia and China then Christianity is definitely responsible for the atrocities of the Crusades, Inquisitions, witch hunts, heresy hunting and the Holocaust.
            Like you, Joseph Stalin thought Evolution by Natural Selection was some bourgeoisie Western philosophy. So the communists adopted a pseudoscience similar to Intelligent Design Magic and Stalin fired or jailed about 3000 evolutionary biologists. Stalin didn’t need them anymore because with Lysenkoism Stalin was convinced that rye could transform into wheat and wheat into barley, that weeds could spontaneously transmute into food grains, and that “natural cooperation” was observed in nature as opposed to “natural selection.” This is a part of history the ID Magic promoters don’t want you to know about because over 20 million people starved to death because of the communists rejection of science, of evolution, and acceptance of pseudoscience the same kind of pseudoscience promoted creationists like Stephen Meyer and you. Again I hate liars and I really hate you.

  • I’m so encouraged to see Evangelicals starting to come out of their cultural captivity in this regard. We have a very long way to go, but not too many years ago there were pretty much zero voices in Evangelicalism like this. One of the reasons so many Evangelicals got sucked into the culture’s sexual ethics in this regard is theological shallowness, and the anti-intellectualism of so much of conservative Christianity. Anybody with any philosophical, historical, theological, and intellectual depth would never have been convinced by the neo-Malthusian garbage of the overpopulation hysteria. An excellent and necessary book for understanding why this is the case is George Marsden’s Fundamentalism and American Culture.

    • gladys1071

      no amount of theology or philosophical teachings are going to make me want to be a parent.

      I do not have the temperament or desire to parent children. I simply do NOT want the responsibility of parenting and raising another human being.

      Are you saying that one should forgo the companionship of marriage. I married for the companionship, not to have children and my husband and i are quite content.

      Each person is different and it is not a one size fits all

      • It depends if you’re a Christian or not. For Christian parents not having children is not an option. “Each person is different” is not a biblical argument, but a secular one derived from the culture. Our preferences are irrelevant. As is our perceived contentment. We have no idea whether having children would affect our contentment, but that’s the beauty of having children: it’s not about us! It’s about learning to selflessly love another human being who cannot give anything us in return. Kind of like God has done for us in Christ.It’s learning how to serve, and come out of me because life base on me is profoundly anti-Christian (he how finds his life will lose it).

        Understanding that marriage without children is an oxymoron (unless God wills it) makes total sense when we see what God has given us in his revelation in creation, Scripture, and in Christ. There is absolutely no way you can claim that his revelation in all three make choosing to not have children as a Christian couple valid. It is wrong, deeply wrong. I can’t do any of this justice in a blog comment, but briefly. God in creation reveals so us the purpose, or telos, of the human body, and the uniting of male and female. It is not for “companionship.” To frustrate that telos by purposefully not having children when we can, is a sin against nature. But there is more. In Scripture, children are a blessing God’s people eagerly sought. As Peter says in Acts 2, the promises belong to us and our children (see Deut. 29:29, Psalm 127, and many others). God’s covenant promises are always to God’s people and their seed, all the way back to Adam and Even, Noah, Abram, and so on. And Christ. It is not a coincidence that one of the great mysteries of the faith is Christ and his bride, the Church. Everything about that metaphor or symbol implies fecundity, a la the Great Commission.

        This is no postmodern, relativistic argument about preferences, but an argument about being faithful to God’s purposes for his people. That includes children.

        • gladys1071

          That is your interpretation of having children, no where does the bible say anything about NOT having any, nowhere is it condemned or classifed as a sin.

          • Your intent on the subject determines the sinfulness, as there is nothing wrong with celibacy.

            If you are continent (abstain totally from sex), then there is no problem here.

        • gladys1071

          If it is wrong for me not to have children, well so be it, that is between me and God, and God can be the judge of me NOT YOU.

          • Did I say anywhere in my comments that I JUDGED you? I didn’t think so. I’m a sinner only worthy of hell, so I judge no one. But you refuse to engage my argument, and I can’t take you seriously. If it’s just my preference versus yours, we have nothing to talk about.Good day.

          • gladys1071

            Your interpretation, the bible no where condemns the use of birth control.

          • Bryan

            God killed Onan as mentioned in the article. That was a form of birth control and the guy died for it. I’m not saying I’m fully convinced, I’m just pointing out your assertion is not necessarily accurate.

          • gladys1071

            No Onan was killed for NOT wanting to father a child for his brother, not for the actual birth control method.

          • Bryan

            OK so not for a particular method necessarily but he did practice birth control in its basic definition. Also, I’m pretty sure you’re right about the Levitical code not mentioning birth control per se but doesn’t it codify what Onan was supposed to do? If I remember correctly, doesn’t the idea of kinsman redeemer come from the Law. And if so, isn’t it implied that birth control should not be practiced?
            Again, I’m not convinced by this article. We’ll see after part 2. I guess it’s more playing devil’s advocate. Who know’s? One of us may firm up the beliefs of the other.

          • gladys1071

            well I don’t need to be convinced, i am at peace with using birth control in my marriage and not having children.

            I just find it interesting how Evangelicals are now on against birth control bandwagon all of a sudden.

            I just think they are scared about the low birth rate.

            I see right through it, it is trying to guilt people who use birth control it is a scare tactic at best.

            I don’t fall for it.

          • gladys1071

            Also if birth control was condemned it would have been listed in Leviticus as a prohibition.

          • Just in case anyone stops by here who care, just because the Bible doesn’t condemn the use of birth control doesn’t mean it’s right. The concept of “birth control” would have been inconceivable to ancient Jews and early Christians. This is a terrible approach to the bible called biblicism, that unless the Bible says something explicitly, it is neither right nor wrong. Even the biblicist, like gladys here, can’t live that approach to Christianity consistently. It’s a horribly constricting and distorting way to try to live life, and not at all biblical.

          • gladys1071

            In truth i really don’t care what the bible says about birth control anyway, i was just stating that for those that do believe it to be an authority, it is NOT condenmned, so you cannot use that to say it is wrong.

            Religious leaders with their fear of sexuality and sexual desire condemned birth control. St. Augustine we have to thank for his condemning even sex in marriage. The truth of the matter is Christianity is really hung up on sexuality and everything associated with it.

            We live in modern times and in a secular age to some extent. I have let go of such rigid religious beliefs on sexuality and birth control.

            As i remember the church used to believe the earth was the center of the universe one time.

          • Not sure why I’d waste my time stating this, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. None whatsoever.

          • gladys1071

            Yes i do, religious leaders are the ones that condemn birth control, leaders such as St. Augustine.

            The Bible does not, tell me a verse where birth control is prohibited?

            Yes birth control was inconceivable in ancient times because reproducing was very important in the “ancient world” and because babies died from all kinds of diseases.

            Just because church fathers condemned birth control does NOT mean it is wrong.

            Church tradition also thought studying anatomy was wrong.

            Church tradition thought the earth was the center of the universe too.

            We live in modern times where large families are not needed since babies no longer die in large numbers.

            I would think that God is also practical and understands that large families are NO longer needed like in the past.

            God gave us a brain to figure these things out.

          • Keep digging, gladys.

          • gladys1071

            tell me where i am wrong?

            Can you refute that the reason people had large families was because of death?

            Can you refute that large families are not practical in modern times for the most part when we are no longer an agrarian society?

            You deny that church fathers and tradition were wrong about a lot of things?

            Please refute these points.

          • I have absolutely debating a stranger online who clearly is convinced he/she is right and has no genuine interest in debate. I gave you more time than I should have above, and you dismissed. I know what you’re about, and I’ll not waste my time. Good day.

  • Nick Stuart

    The de facto Evangelical catechism begins: The chief end of men and women is to have a comfy home in and upscale suburb, lots of stuff, and a fully-funded retirement.

    Kids interfere with that. And that’s a pretty heavy stone to roll away.

    Have more than three children, and your fellow church members will start laughing at you behind your back (and sometimes scold you to your face).

    • Truly this heresy is a plague.

    • Ken Abbott

      Only if “Evangelical” is defined psychosocially and not theologically or historically.

  • gladys1071

    i believe the reason evangelicals are all of a sudden concerned about birth control is because Christians are having less kids and even some couples like myself and my husband chose not to have any kids at all.

    It is fear, fear that Christians are not reproducing in enough numbers. So now they are supposedly ‘RE-EXAMINING” the acceptance of contraception.

    I have been happily married 21 years, with no kids, we are perfectly content with not being parents.

    I don’t consider myself an evangelical anyway.

    I think the issue of having children should be between the couple and God, everyone else should MYOB.

    • Boris

      Let’s qualify that. White Christians are concerned – worried about being a minority in the near future.

      • gladys1071

        that is exactly it, i find it interesting how protestants now are supposedly questioning birth control?

        very telling indeed.

    • You certianly will not be “content” at your Particular Judgement with this weighing on you.

      • Boris

        Somebody frightened Nigelteapot into his or her beliefs. This person cannot figure out why they can’t frighten other people the way other people frightened them. They can never find anyone else as stupid and gullible as they are. This drives them insane as you can clearly see from their posts.

        • Is this more projection? Or has your demon gotten confused?

          • Boris

            Demons. How brain dead does a person have to be to believe in demons? “But the Jebus fairy beweeved in dem, he weally weally beweeved did the Jebus fairy!” Bible brain death. All of you fundy maggots are exactly the same. If you’ve seen one you’ve seen them all.

          • Digging graves for others leads into to you falling in. As for your denial of demons, why do you do exactly what they want if you claim they don’t exist?

          • Boris

            There’s exactly the same amount of evidence that demons exist as there is that invisible pink unicorns exist. They can’t WANT anything as they do not exist. That concept is a little too complex for the Bible thumper. Much like 2 + 2.

          • Completely missing my question: why do you serve demons if you don’t believe they exist?

          • Boris

            I’m not serving anybody. I do what I want. You can’t and so you envy me. Too bad for you Loser.

          • Yet you do just that. Those that deny the devil belong to him, and that is confirmed by your actions.

          • Boris

            OTHER PEOPLE brainwashed you into believing that. They seemed so sincere because they believed it too. That’s how cults survive. The cult leaders believe the lies they are spewing which is why you gullible fools think you can trust them. Just remember you get all of your beliefs from the words of OTHER PEOPLE.

          • So your self-creation delusion leads you to reject anything you personally don’t come up with?

            If that’s the case, then why is your theology ripped straight from de chardin or neitzche?

          • Boris

            “So your self-creation delusion leads you to reject anything you personally don’t come up with?”
            No, I just don’t trust people who claim to be experts on a subject they exhibit no expertise on.
            “If that’s the case, then why is your theology ripped straight from de chardin or neitzche?”
            FYI I have never read a word from either of those people. Theology is the study of nothing. I don’t have any theology. Now if you went to the medical school you say you did you can tell me what the big attraction is at Maymont Park. What is it?

          • But you do have their theology, but you also picked it up from media second hand without even realizing it. It is like you are a somnambulist.

          • Boris

            I am an atheist. What I think about the Bible comes from my own reading of it, in Greek. That is how I know when Jesus is quoted as talking about the end of the age he’s talking about the end of the astrological age. English translators purposely blur that in order to hide the truth from the gullible masses of which you are a fine example.
            After the age of Pisces will come Aquarius. The Jesus story is a solar myth reinvented by a church that had no idea what it was reading. Much like you.

          • So you are now going into outright paganism.

          • Boris

            Yes Christianity is a pagan religion and Jesus is a pagan god.

          • pagan “gods” are demons. It seems you are not only ignorant, but now dipping into blasphemy.

          • Boris

            Neither pagan gods nor demons exist apart from literature and vivid imaginations.

          • And yet you worship demons. Once more, is there a point to this nonsense you flood my inbox with? Do you et paid by the post?

          • Boris

            I want people reading what you write to see the kinds of things true Bible believers believe. They won’t want to be associated with you and so they stop going to church, stop feeding the monster.

          • Clearly you are attempting to be less lonely. I will not partake.

  • Keith

    I guess I’ll wait for the next article but this one sure didn’t offer any arguments of why using contraception is wrong. Hopefully the next article actually uses scripture to back the argument up. Just throwing out some quotes from way back when (like the one saying sex is only ok if you are trying to impregnate the woman) don’t hold water with me. There are probably just as many quotes of preachers using the Bible to justify slavery in the 1800’s.

    • gladys1071

      As i stated above, all of a sudden evangelicals now are against birth control, i think is a knee jerk reaction to lower birth rate even among Christians.

      It is based on fear, the want Christian couples to have more kids. The other thing is i guess it must bother them that married couples might be enjoying sex without having kids, gasp! can’t have that now, gotta make up rules.

      It is all about control.

      • So you are not continent? AND you contracept? That’s two mortal sins in a row.

    • AdamBGraham

      I felt the same way after reading. Name dropping number of well-known names is one thing. But I’m more interested in their reasoning and that was not presented here. I also have very little actual interest in Roman Catholic history of support and my fear is that the few vocal examples in history may be overshadowing the otherwise mainstream consensus on the ground in the actual church of believers.

      • Allow me to have GK Chesterton answer your support of sin by popularity: “right is right even if no one is right, wrong is wrong even if everyone is wrong.”

    • Yet the Church was against slavery from the start.

      It seems you have styled yourself after those prots who tried to find any excuse to justify their sin while still pretending to nominally be of God. Nominally being the important word there as both slavers and contraception users have rejected God totally in their hearts.

      • Keith

        Thank you for the name calling without any examples from scripture like I asked for.

        • That man is Made in the Image of God.

          You can read what the Church Fathers had to say.

          • swordfish

            The Bible condones slavery.

          • How?

            Nowhere is the kind you are talking about mentioned, as biblical slavery is live-in servitude. The treating of people like property is a pagan thing and the Church has always rejected that.

          • swordfish

            Your claim is false, but in any case, “live-in servitude” is classified as slavery under the UN charter of human rights.

          • Trilemma

            This is God condoning chattel slavery.

            “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. – Leviticus 25:44-46 NIV

            These slaves were slaves for life. They were never released. They were property.

          • Going by a prot bible?

            Also the Church rejected slavery and Christians always have. Like most Old Covenant practices it was abolished, of course what was wrong during the Old Covenant is still wrong as truth is constant.

          • Ken Abbott

            If memory serves, Leviticus appears in the Douay-Rheims version of the Scriptures, too. Or, if you prefer, the Latin Vulgate.

            Please don’t make this an artificial Protestant-Roman Catholic thing.

          • I am making this a bad translation for a heresy “thing.”

          • Ken Abbott

            It’s not the translation’s fault that Trilemma is a lousy exegete of Scripture. “Slave” is a legitimate translation of the Hebrew word, but Trilemma wants to make ancient forms of involuntary servitude the equivalent of modern-era chattel slavery, which it decidedly was not. I don’t believe the NIV is intended to be a sectarian translation.

          • So we agree.

          • Ken Abbott

            Very likely. We both think Trilemma’s full of it on this score.

  • Boris

    John Calvin didn’t like contraception. But he had no problem with murdering infidels and burning them at the stake. What a scum bag, a true hero for Christians.

    • Boris, your ignorance of history is impressive. Your nuanced understanding of the times in which Calvin lived is no less impressive. Although Calvin had no power to burn anybody at the stake himself, I wonder if you can share with us all these infidels he supposedly did this to. I’m waiting.

      • Boris

        I have a degree in History. I’ve never used it but it does come in handy because I am able to tell when other people are full of Shinola. So your times in which Calvin lived argument is Shinola. It was a time when a religion that teaches that the greatest sin a person can commit is a rejection of it teachings about Jesus Christ had control of the government. I said Calvin had no problem with murdering infidels, which of course is pretty well documented by his own words. He was evil and demented and had political power which he used against his perceived enemies. I don’t know if he actually killed anybody himself, it doesn’t matter. Hitler probably didn’t kill anybody either. Hitler and Calvin. The only difference is Calvin didn’t have an army with automatic weapons and gas chambers.

        • Bryan

          Boris, you’ve claimed to have degrees is sciences and now history. I’d be interested in seeing your CV, redacted of course (I don’t need to know you name, address, etc.). You seem to have led an impossible life or a highly remarkable one.

          • Boris

            I have never claimed to have a degree in science.

          • Bryan

            I thought that you had in one or more posts from Mr. Gilson on atheism or similar topics. Perhaps I am remembering wrong.

          • Boris

            I bet I know what it was because I do it all the time. Creationists often ask me where I got my information about the subject of evolution. I like to tell them that I got it in Biology 101 at a private Christian college affiliated with the Lutheran Church. Many creationists are blissfully unaware that all the Christian colleges and universities that teach life sciences have been teaching evolution for over a century, since before the Scopes trial. Sometimes I’ll go on about how I didn’t know much about evolution until the Christians got hold of this atheist and brainwashed me with all their facts about Evolution by Natural Selection. It really points out the absurdity of evolution denialism.

          • Oh, let me disabuse you of that.

            evolution is the absurd gnostic religious dogma that states that people created themselves. Now it is absurd for you to be able to create yourself as all must originate from an uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover.

            You therefore try to hide this absurdity under the presence that it all took a long time.

            I will end by saying this delusion will not make your shame over sin leave you.

          • Boris

            Not only are you a scientific ignoramus, you’re a liar, you’re a religious fanatic and you just proved Christianity only appeals to the base human emotion of cowardice. Christian colleges and universities have been teaching evolution for over a century. Take your complaints to them why don’t you? We all know why. Because evolution is a fact and Christianity is a fantasy. Don’t bother responding. You’ll only be further humiliated.

          • You cannot create yourself, no matter what story you come up with to explain how you did it (multiverse, it took a long time, because I said so, etc).

          • Boris

            My wife and I created two children. Human evolution is the best documented science we have. You Bible thumpers have been lying about evolution for 150 years and have never even scratched the surface. And you never will. The important elements we are made of can only come from inside of a giant star, much bigger than our star. The only way they can get out into space is when a star explodes and spews these elements millions of miles out into space. So forget Jesus, a star died so you could live. We are not just part of the universe, we ARE the universe – the universe becoming a ware of itself. That makes us some pretty special star matter, much more special than even your book of fairies says we are.

          • If it is the best document science you have, then all of your modern science is invalid.

            So you think you created you children? Therefore you think you have given your children rights? That’s diabolic and dangerous.

            As for your rhetoric about stars, that is straight out of the ramblings of laurence krauss. It is also gnosticism, which is exemplified by your statement that you are a “universe becoming aware of itself.”

            This is right out of tielhard de chardin and friedrich nietzche who said that you will “illuminate” yourself into an “omega point” where you will usurp God.

            So you just confirmed my point that your nonesense is little more than gnostic religious dogma.

            The problem with your delusion is that your only authority and value comes from being Made in the Image of God. You then try to satanically invert this by saying that you are a pagan “god” who is yet unaware of this. You fell very hard for the devil’s lie that “ye will be like gods” after you gain “knowing/illumination.”

            Now, tell me, have you always been a freemason or satanist?

          • Boris

            “If it is the best document science you have, then all of your modern science is invalid.”
            It’s those kinds of of crazy claims that make American creationists the laughingstock of the entire world. It’s your science too as evolution is foundation of not only biology but immunology and medicine as well. The great thing about science is it works and can save your life even if you don’t believe in it. Does Jesus do that? Nope. Better stick with science.
            “So you think you created you children? Therefore you think you have given your children rights?
            No I live in the United States and our rights are guaranteed by the Constitution.
            “That’s diabolic and dangerous.”
            Says the science denier! Your lack of self awareness is showing again.
            “that you are a “universe becoming aware of itself.”
            No we are. You and me and everybody else. Take the religious blinders off.
            “This is right out …. friedrich nietzche …”
            I have about as much use for philosophers as I have for anybody else who sits on their butts all day.
            “The problem with your delusion is th at your only authority and value comes from being Made in the Image of God.”
            That’s YOUR delusion, your man-made religious dogma.
            “You…. after you gain “knowing/illumination.”
            I don’t have to worry then because I have no idea what you mean by “knowing/illumination” and I don’t want to know. It sounds like superstitious drivel to me.
            “Now, tell me, have you always been a freemason or satanist?”
            I don’t believe in Satan. I’m not a Freemason but most of our founders were. My relatives are Jewish but I’ve always been an atheist. I don’t belong to organizations or religions or ascribe to any schools of thought. I don’t think I am a god. FYI I reject any claims about science coming from non-scientists and I reject any claims about God or the supernatural coming from human beings. If there is a God who wants to be friends and hang out or wants something else he can come by any time and we can talk. A personal appearance is all the evidence I need to believe in God.

          • you mean you want to figure out a way to try to control God. That is the main goal here, you want to control everything.

          • Boris

            Control God? That’s what people do when they pray. “Oh God, please break the laws of physics just for me! Please!” How arrogant to bother God with your requests as if you deserve some kind of special treatment. I never understood how people could do that. I don’t want to control everything. However if I were king, things would be different.

          • All prayer is prompted by God.

          • Boris

            It’s really arrogant of you to speak for God. You don’t know any more about God than I do. So that’s why I don’t believe you. I told you I reject all claims about God coming from humans.

          • Once more, no human prays without first being prompted by God.

          • Boris

            How do you know that? Did God tell you Herself?

          • God is the Father of all.

          • gladys1071

            Control God? we cannot even control other people?

            that is just silly

          • Yet you fixate on control, this time your own children.

          • gladys1071

            Well i think that if God really wanted me to have children, he is poweful enough to override my birth control don’t you think?

            So don’t worry your little head over that, God is still very much in control.

          • You are correct, what you don’t understand is that God is going along with your insult against him as a punishment.

          • swordfish

            No one is claiming that the universe created itself.

          • There must always be an uncontingent, uncreated Prime Mover. By denying God, you claim to make yourself that. This delusion of self-creation is refused by causality and contingency.

          • swordfish

            “There must always be an uncontingent, uncreated Prime Mover”

            According to what reason?

          • That is the foundational proof of all existence.

            If you deny God, then you are claiming that everything is its own uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover. This is totally refuted by causality and contingency.

          • swordfish

            “If you deny God, then you are claiming that everything is its own uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover. This is totally refuted by causality and contingency.”

            I don’t ‘deny God’ per se, I just don’t believe there is a God. If you think there is a reason why a “prime mover” is needed, then explain it properly rather than just waffling about “causality and contingency”.

          • This is the fallacy of voluntarism, meaning you believe reality requires your permission. Like all grave sinners, you wish to deny God because you have wronged Him.

            There was not a single uncertain term in what you quoted there. I encapsulated all creation into two sentences. I suppose understanding that would require a level of intellectual honesty you aren’t capable of because of shame over sin.

          • swordfish

            I’m sorry, but your comment is so dumb it just makes me laugh. I’m about as far away from a ‘grave sinner’ as one could get.

            You talk about ‘intellectual honesty’ and think that somehow consists of believing in nonsensical, contradictory fairystories in an ancient book, whilst denying the voluminous mountains of evidence from every branch of science. I feel really sorry that you’re trapped in such a depressing delusion.

          • As Kierkegaard said, despair cannot recognize itself. Those who say they have no sin are truly evil because they have lost all ability to see their own faults.

            Also, why is it you reprobates use “contradiction” when attacking Christianity? All of you do it, and you clearly have no ability to think for yourselves, so where did it come from?

          • swordfish

            I don’t accept the whole concept of ‘sin’. I’m not perfect, but then no one is. So what? I haven’t murdered anyone or done anything particularly bad – if I get too much change in a shop I give it back! I’m certainly not a “grave sinner”. Kierkegaard can take a running jump.

            As for not thinking for myself, that is obviously wrong. If I didn’t think for myself, I’d still be a Christian.

          • sin is division from God. Since you are contingent upon God, this means you are dead without Him and start to decay. This decay is called evil.

            No, if you did think for yourself you would have become a Christian. you have yet to enter into any relationship with God.

          • swordfish

            Whatever.

          • swordfish

            Evolution does not state the people created themselves.

          • It is based fundamentally on self-creation. Since you deny God, that means that you believe everything is its own Prime Mover.

            Therefore you try to explain away this by saying everything took millions of years to make itself. Of course, causality still refutes your delusion, so you see self-aware evolutionists having to deny causality altogether.

          • swordfish

            I don’t ‘deny God’, I just don’t believe that God exists. The universe is 13.8 billion years old. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Life evolved over about 4 billion years. These ages are arrived at by looking at the evidence, not by trying to disprove God.

            There’s no reason to suppose the universe was created, it’s just a fact that it exists. If you claim God created it, you have to explain what created God. If you answer that God didn’t need creating, I can say the same about the universe, and my claim has greater validity due to being simpler.

          • There is no evidence as evidence is a result d observation and you can observe no such thing. All that you mention is a mythology crafted to push a specific gnostic theology.

            Now you are channeling dawkins. Worse than your other friend who was channeling krauss.

            As I said, all needs an uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover. There is no such thing as something in creation that is subsistent; contingency proves this and so does causality. Like I said your kind denies both contingency and causality, preferring for a belief in total randomness as that is the only area your evil can survive. People like you deny free will for the same reason.

            God is the Prime Mover, the subsistent act of to be Himself. There is nothing outside of God and God created everything.

            Now you fully know that there must be an uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover and you admit this by claiming the universe is that. Of course the universe has no will nor creative power so you refute yourself.

          • swordfish

            “There is no evidence as evidence is a result d observation and you can observe no such thing.”

            Events in the past leave evidence behind, otherwise crime investigation wouldn’t work. If the only evidence you accept is direct observation, then the Bible is out of the window.

            “As I said, all needs an uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover.”

            You can say it, but that doesn’t make it true.

            “There is nothing outside of God and God created everything.”

            For something so all-encompassing, it’s odd that you can’t point to a single piece of evidence that such a thing even exists.

            “Now you fully know that there must be an uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover and you admit this by claiming the universe is that. Of course the universe has no will nor creative power so you refute yourself.”

            I admit no such thing. I’m not arguing that the universe created itself, only that it exists. There has never been a time when nothing existed.

          • Once more, evidence is a result of observation. you can look at the past, but with your levels of confirmation bias, you only attempt to accept things that will serve your predetermined delusion in gnosticism. This is also why you say you cannot observe God, because you only care about promotions your delusion instead of learning anything.

            An infinite regress is as absurd as your pride-born delusion of self-creation. The foundation of all fields of valid thought and valid sciences are that all needs an uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover.

          • swordfish

            “but with your levels of confirmation bias, you only attempt to accept things that will serve your predetermined delusion”

            The facts about the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, and so on weren’t determined by me but by scientists. Dating methods don’t suffer from confirmation bias.

            “An infinite regress is as absurd as your pride-born delusion of self-creation.”

            I’m not claimning there is/was an infinite regress, merely that the universe (or multiverse) may be self-contained, but claiming that an infinite regress “is absurd” is just an argument from personal incredulity anyway.

            “The foundation of all fields of valid thought and valid sciences are that all needs an uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover.”

            Repeating this like a mantra doesn’t make it true. I can’t see any reason why such a thing is needed, nor have you provided one.

          • They do suffer from confirmation bias as they are guesses made up out of thin air with the explicit purpose of legitimizing their religious paganism. The delusion of a “multiverse” is explicitly gnostic, and is created to cover an even deeper jump into gnostic religious paganism, but also to cover for your delusion that you created yourself.

            Claiming something is self-contained is to say it is subsistent, then you claim it is the source of all being.

            Therefore you claim that the universe is uncreated and uncontingent; hiding it under semantics like “self-contained” will not save you.

            Implying that the universe always was there, is saying that everything created itself and is therefore it’s own Prime Mover.

            So you do have to smuggle in the proof for existence (that all needs an uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover), but you have to do so secretly, even so secretly that you aren’t smart enough to realize it.

          • swordfish

            “guesses made up out of thin air with the explicit purpose of legitimizing their religious paganism”

            It’s amazing, in a way, that you’re unable to see that this is what you’re doing – only to legitimise your religious belief. Scientists in general aren’t particularly interested in religion and certainly don’t make disproving it the focus of their life’s work. It’s also ridiculous to dismiss all scientific evidence as ‘delusion’ whilst using the Internet to do so! How do you think the vast network of technology you’re (hypocritically) using works if it’s all based on delusion?

            “Implying that the universe always was there, is saying that everything created itself and is therefore it’s own Prime Mover.”

            I was pointing out that if time started with the big bang, then there was no ‘before’ in which anything could have happened, but most scientists think the universe has always existed in one form or another. In neither case is there any need to appeal to a deity to create everything.

          • The computer and internet were made possible by the work of priests and nuns who revolutionized the field into being able to be mass produced.

            The “sciences” of today are solely interested in pushing and self-justifying a pagan religion called gnosticism.

            Once more, in your second paragraph, do you try to smuggle in an uncontingent, uncreated Prime Mover by claiming the universe created itself so you can pretend you created yourself. Or was it that you told me a week ago that you thought you were the universe.

          • swordfish

            “The computer and internet were made possible by the work of priests and nuns”

            LOL. Okay, whatever.

            “claiming the universe created itself so you can pretend you created yourself. Or was it that you told me a week ago that you thought you were the universe.”

            I’m not claiming the universe created itself. Haven’t I already said that several times? seems like you don’t listen.

        • I see. I wonder if you got that degree from a Cracker Jack box. Calvin compared to Hitler. That’s a new one. I think you have a version of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Only worse. I’m sorry, buy trying to have a rational conversation with someone like you is clearly impossible.

          • Boris

            Degree is from a college affiliated with the Lutheran Church. Do you think John Calvin was a good Christian? Would you rather be living in a theocracy? FYI I don’t have TDS.

  • swordfish

    Jesus didn’t have any kids.

    • Ken Abbott

      So that whole Sinclair family claim is fake? Shocked, shocked I am!

    • Christ is God.

      You were tasked to be fruitful and multiply.

      • swordfish

        Actions speak louder than words.

  • Trilemma

    Since the writers of the Bible didn’t fully understand how babies are made, the Bible isn’t an answer book on the issue of contraception.

    • Ken Abbott

      Mostly because there wasn’t much interest in preventing pregnancy. From the perspective of Scripture, children are a blessing; many children are a whole lot of blessing.

      You made me chuckle, T. It seems as though those old Bible-times fogies knew *enough* about how babies come into the world.

      • Trilemma

        Children were viewed differently back then. High infant mortality meant they needed to make lots of babies. Children were a free source of labor or could be sold for money. Children were a person’s retirement plan. Today, not so much.

        Back then, they believed a man planted a seed in a women for it grow as a farmer planted a seed in the ground for it to grow.

        • Yes, viewed differently as in that children are humans Made in the Image of God. Something you seem to deny in your desire to “fornicate after strange gods.”

          The people of the past deeply loved and respected their children and had children because the first command of God was for Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply.” It seems that you -on the other hand- are the only one reducing children to an economic figure.

          In fact, is it not that you devil worshippers partake in contraception precisely because you see children exclusively as an economic tool?

          Seems your “protesting too much” has lead you to project your own views onto the people of the past in the hopes that absolves you of guilt. How well is that working out for you?

          • swordfish

            It seems as if you’re the one projecting. Trilema’s analysis of the reasons why people used to have more children is accurate and agrees with known facts. Yours? Not so much.

          • Accurate because it confirms your biases and agrees with your desperate attempt to project your evil to justify it?

          • swordfish

            His opinion agrees with known historical facts, yours doesn’t – it still looks like you’re being biased. And, I’m not evil.

          • your defense of pure evil shows otherwise. Also, as I said, his post is little more than projection of his marxist devilry onto people of the past who actually cared about their children.

          • swordfish

            Repeating nonsense doesn’t make it true. And I’m not ‘evil’ in any meaningful sense of the word – I’m actually a really nice guy!

          • evil is decay caused by sin. It is desperately clear that whatever humanity you have left, is minute.

          • swordfish

            Now you’re just being silly.

        • Ken Abbott

          “Children were viewed differently back then.” Be that as it may have been in some cultures (more particularly for baby girls than boys), have you evidence that those attitudes prevailed amongst the Hebrews? My reading of the OT is rather different–if memory serves, children are universally held in high regard, and a multitude of them was a blessing. Great care was taken to instruct the next generation in the verities of the faith, for instance–this was an investment in the people of God’s future, and not merely in an economic sense.

          I would be careful about making generalities concerning what people believed “back then.” My reading experience informs me that our distant ancestors, while certainly not as extensively versed in the technical aspects of the biological sciences, were more sophisticated than we snobbish moderns tend to credit.

          • Trilemma

            If children were held in such high regard, why were they sold into slavery, especially little girls?

          • Ken Abbott

            Have you a specific instance in mind, T?

          • Trilemma

            No, but the Old Testament has a number of laws concerning the sale of children into slavery.

          • Ken Abbott

            Well, let’s choose one or two texts and explore them together. We may find that our first-glance conclusions are wrong.

          • Trilemma

            Here’s one.

            “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. – Genesis 21:7 NASB

          • Ken Abbott

            Okay. I have the NIV with me, so please excuse any minor inter-version variations.

            Set the overall context. Exodus is the account of God’s delivery of the Hebrew nation out of *slavery* in Egypt. Chapter 20 marks a transition from a narration of people and events to God’s initial giving of his law–his code of conduct–for his covenant people. Following the impartation of the Decalogue, God reinforces the ban on idolatry and wrong actions in worship. His next elaboration on his laws for them addresses the treatment of Hebrew servants (the NIV uses this instead of “slaves;” I do not have sufficient expertise in Hebrew to say which is to be preferred, but I strongly suspect the concept is one of indentured servitude). Bear in mind that the Hebrews have themselves been slaves for 400 years and that slavery was widely accepted in the ancient world as part of the natural order. God’s laws regarding the treatment of slaves/servants is intended to regulate and humanize the practice. The first part of this text deals with male indentured servants (the term of service is time-limited; he is to be permitted his freedom in the seventh year but may stay on voluntarily). The next part deals with daughters entering into indentured servitude, which was a common practice of the day and did not mean anything about the girl/young woman lacking value as to her family–if anything, this might have been a method of securing a future for the girl, because this is a contract for marriage, either to the new master or the master’s son (verses 8-9). Note the provisions for the girl’s welfare if the master marries another woman or if he fails to live up to his obligations to her.

            So a conclusion that this practice–strange though it is to us–reflects a lack of concern for children is unwarranted and may actually prove the opposite. In some instances, it might have been a form of upward mobility, or at least a move out of poverty into material sufficiency.

          • Trilemma

            I don’t disagree with anything you said here. However, a man who buys another man’s daughter doesn’t have to marry her. He can keep her as a concubine or sex slave for producing babies.

            Would you consider it moral today for a man to sell his daughter into slavery/servitude for the purpose of marriage or concubinage? What would you think of such a man?

            God was creating a brand new nation with Israel. Why would God condone things for Israel that their future neighbors did?

          • Ken Abbott

            In this passage, the options appear to be that the man buying the woman as an indentured servant either intends to marry her, have his son marry her, or maintain her in his house and supply her needs. If he fails to do these things, she may be redeemed or given her freedom. This is certainly different than our experience, but we don’t live in a premodern agrarian society. It would have been distinctly unfair to disorient these people through a radical realignment of human relationships that conforms to current mores (and who’s to say we have everything figured out, hmm?), so God permitted some practices to continue, but with significant regulation and with a marked degree of protection for vulnerable people that was unheard-of in other contemporary societies. The OT morality we so flippantly condemn was miles beyond what people had to put up with elsewhere. We in the 21st century West rarely stop to think about how things used to be, how things still are in many parts of this world.

          • Trilemma

            If the man who bought the daughter decides to maintain her in his house and supply her needs then that makes her a concubine. There seems to be various opinions on what a concubine was in the Old Testament. Was she a wife or was she cohabitating?

          • Ken Abbott

            I believe there is a distinction between concubinage and cohabitation–undoubtedly some form of legal (or customary) arrangement governed the former relationship. But I am insufficiently schooled in the phenomenon of concubinage as described in the OT to make much additional comment, other that to observe it seems plain that concubinage and fornication/adultery were not considered to be the same thing. If the subject interests you, T, why not make a study of it?

    • Certianly understood that children are human and not to be exterminated in satanic rituals for “convenience.” So therefore they are already more advanced than you.

      As for contraception, it is of the same evil as abortion and one leads into the other. It is a mortal sin and therefore it kills the soul to partake in it.

      • swordfish

        Isn’t not having sex also a type of contraception?

        • No, as there is no sexual act involved in abstaining. That is called being continent.

          If you go into a sexual act closed off from life, for any reason, then you are destroying your soul.

          • swordfish

            So what happens if you can’t have children, as 1 in 7 couples can’t?

          • Look at the chemicals they eat.

          • swordfish

            You’re avoiding the question and talking nonsense.

      • Trilemma

        How is the prevention of conception the same as abortion?

        • They are both against natural law, and both result from and lead to you treating your own children as economic tools. You then project this evil of your own onto the people of the past.

  • DCM7

    It’s very clear, from the Bible and from how God designed our bodies, that reproduction is very important to him. (Given that, incidentally, it’s no surprise that the anti-Christian world looks on it with such arrogant contempt.)

    But the Bible and God’s design do not support the idea that sex is only for reproduction. Indeed, there seems to be little in the Bible that can even be interpreted that way. (Onan in Genesis 38? His sin wasn’t failure to reproduce; it was rebelling against his obligation to provide descent for his deceased brother.) And there are things in the Bible that imply quite the opposite.

    Before we call on Christians to reproduce, at any rate, how about preparing them to be spouses and parents? How about preparing them to stand against the world’s pressure to be lustful and unfaithful?

    Not everyone, even among Christians, is right for the role of parent or even spouse. I’ll be the first to raise my hand and say that I was never right for parenthood, or (when I was younger) for marriage. And no one, even in the Church, ever helped me to realize that. much less address it. I only figured it out, for myself, when it was too late. The main message I got about marriage, even in the Church, was that it was there to meet MY needs — basically, the same message I got from the anti-Christian world.

    Should evangelicals address something regarding marriage and reproduction? Maybe they should start with countering the world’s messages about those things.

  • porcupineman1454

    Contraception is not only used to prevent pregnancy, but for medical issues as well. Where will that factor into your argument?

  • You complain about contraception and abortion? Wow–you’ve got your bases covered! You have plenty to complain about when you call abortion a terrible crime and reject its solution.

    That’s not really a win-win, more of a lose-lose, but whatever.

Inspiration
History is His Story
Dwight Longenecker
More from The Stream
Connect with Us